LIJDLR

Animal welfare

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS

Volume III Issue IV /

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS Vikrant Madhurjya, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Smriti Parashar, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Mizba Ahmed, Bachelor of Commerce and Bachelor of Laws (B.Com LLB) Student at Department of Law, NEF Law College, Guwahati, Assam (India) Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.202 In the theatre of climate change, the loudest cries often belong to humans, while faint echoes of non-human suffering fade unheard into the background. Climate change, though universal in nature, often remains selectively compassionate in its remedies. Each environmental catastrophe, from flood to drought, or wildfire to cyclone, leaves behind the traces of non-human invisible victims: animals are left behind to starve, die, migrate, or perish without a single legal remedy or recognition provided to them. The law remains deaf to all animals that flee from flames, drown in floods, and slowly yet gradually vanish from our ecosystem. Despite their sentience, feelings, and emotions, they remain non-living entities from the damage caused by disasters or climate change. Yet, when disaster strikes, the law counts bodies, not lives. The law tries to rebuild cities, not ecosystems. The current jurisprudence often fails to see and treat them as anything beyond just a resource, property, or mere ecological component. They often forget the fact that even animals share the same planet as ours and treat them as victims of rights or beings that are capable of suffering like us humans. This research paper seeks to explore the legal void in protecting animals during environmental catastrophes – a void born not just of mere ignorance but of moral negligence. Through this multifaceted lens combining law, morals, ethics, animal rights, and jurisprudence, this paper aims to interrogate: Can a law that excludes the voiceless ever claim to be just? What happens when the climate justice movement fails to see beyond the human species? And how can legal frameworks evolve to include non-human victims as well in the fight against climate change?

CLIMATE CHANGE AND NON-HUMAN VICTIMS – THE LEGAL VOID IN PROTECTING ANIMALS DURING ENVIRONMENTAL DISASTERS Read More »

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS

Volume III Issue IV /

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS Tadgh Quill-Manley, Law, Yr 2, Semester 1 student at King’s Inns, ‘Glenwood,’ Cork, Ireland Download Manuscript doi.org/10.70183/lijdlr.2025.v03.140 This article conducts a doctrinal analysis of the legality of continued State funding for horse and greyhound racing in Ireland, assessing its compatibility with domestic and EU animal welfare obligations and Irish administrative law principles. Established under the Horse and Greyhound Racing Act 2001, the annual Horse and Greyhound Racing Fund allocates over €90 million to support these culturally and economically significant industries, yet intensifying public scrutiny – fuelled by media investigations, NGO reports, and parliamentary debates – highlights welfare deficiencies, including traceability gaps, inconsistent injury reporting, and inadequate rehoming practices. Employing a doctrinal methodology, the article examines primary sources: statutes like the Animal Health and Welfare Act 2013 and Welfare of Greyhounds Act 2011; EU Regulations on transport, slaughter, and controls (e.g., (EC) No 1/2005 and (EU) 2017/625); and case law such as O’Connell v The Turf Club [2015] IESC 57 and Connolly v Bord na gCon [2020] IECA 122, which affirm regulators’ public-law duties. It integrates parliamentary materials and comparative insights from UK and New South Wales reforms. Findings reveal that funding remains lawful if conditioned on welfare compliance, but unconditional allocations risk judicial review for irrationality, failure to consider relevant welfare evidence, or disproportionality. Hypotheses posit substantive limits from welfare duties, vulnerability to challenge without evidence engagement, and the need for performance-based models. The article concludes that ministerial discretion must prioritise demonstrable welfare outcomes, transparency, and accountability. Recommendations advocate statutory amendments for conditional funding, independent audits, and enhanced reporting to reconcile legal obligations with industry interests, ensuring long-term defensibility.

A DOCTRINAL ASSESSMENT OF STATE FUNDING FOR IRISH HORSE AND GREYHOUND RACING: COMPATIBILITY WITH ANIMAL WELFARE OBLIGATIONS AND ADMINISTRATIVE LAW CONSTRAINTS Read More »